Anti intellectualism directed against science.

[Diamond72]

Why not try the circle of translations?

In the Bible, we learn the original language. We do not trust people to translate for us. There is FAR too much information that is lost and does not get translated. We call this fig leaf religion. Adam and Eve had clothing made from the fiber of fig leaves. Sowing needles go back 45,000 years. But we still see pictures of Adam and Eve wearing fig leaves in cartoon fashion.

 

[Diamond72]

Norma McCorvey has that beat in spades.

She was a pawn who later repented and became anti abortion. So she most likely will be in Heaven. Maybe they can rejoice that God can save someone like that. Like Wayne from the Wayne's World who goes through life proclaiming: "I am not worthy".

 

[Diamond72]

Dunno what you are trying to tell me.

That means it is a cardinal sin for an abortionist to refer to a clum of cells as a baby or human. They want to act like it is some sort of tumor that needs to be removed so the woman does not feel guilty for having killed her baby. The ones that do feel remorse could end up repenting and being reunited with their baby in Heaven.

 

[sjastro]

yes there are limits

• "Why Language Models Still Don't Understand Language" by Gary Marcus, Wired, Sept. 11, 2020. https://www.wired.com/story/why-language-models-still-dont-understand-language/
• "The Limits of Language Models" by Emily Bender, The Gradient, Apr. 9, 2021. https://thegradient.pub/the-limits-of-language-models/
• "The Challenge of Making Machines Understand Language" by Tom Simonite, Wired, Nov. 26, 2019. https://www.wired.com/story/the-challenge-of-making-machines-understand-language/
• "The Problem With AI Language Models" by James Vincent, The Verge, Apr. 19, 2021. https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/19/22382748/ai-language-models-gpt-3-bias-climate-change

Congratulations you made a clean sweep as none of your links work.
It doesn't matter as the issue is not about how good or bad chatbot is as a language model but as a conveyor of accurate information when it comes to science and has been shown by the examples given to be grossly deficient.

 

[Diamond72]

Congratulations you made a clean sweep as none of your links work.

Yep, I noticed that. I think perplexity gives valid link but GPT 3 seems to be worthless. I am using a chrome computer so I cannot actually use GPT 4 without a windows computer. I am still working on finding a way to provide the links and references for people.

How medical research changed after thalidomide

In response to the thalidomide tragedy, governments mandated stricter regulations for approving new drugs. In this feature, we outline those important changes.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

US Regulatory Response to Thalidomide (1950-2000) | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia

US Regulatory Response to Thalidomide (1950-2000)

embryo.asu.edu

The Thalidomide Tragedy and its Lasting Effects

Share to:FacebookTwitterRedditPocketEmail

sqonline.ucsd.edu

The thalidomide disaster, lessons from the past - PubMed

It is close to 60 years since thalidomide was created by the German company, Chemie-Grünenthal, and launched as "Contergan." This was soon to be followed in England by the launch of "Distaval." Of all the drugs developed in the intervening years, thalidomide has undoubtedly had the greatest...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Thalidomide, Drug Safety Regulation, and the British Pharmaceutical Industry: The Case of Imperial Chemical Industries

Since World War II, the pharmaceutical industry has become one of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy, often to the despair of company managers, who have sometimes blamed the current dearth of new drugs on the increasingly complex and costly procedures...

link.springer.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

In the Bible, we learn the original language. We do not trust people to translate for us. There is FAR too much information that is lost and does not get translated. We call this fig leaf religion.

I don't believe for one second that you read ancient Hebrew.

Adam and Eve had clothing made from the fiber of fig leaves. Sowing needles go back 45,000 years. But we still see pictures of Adam and Eve wearing fig leaves in cartoon fashion.

Needles aren't used for sowing, but drills are.

 

[Diamond72]

I don't believe for one second that you read ancient Hebrew.

I study Hebrew and Strong's concordance helps a lot.

Needles aren't used for sowing, but drills are.

Sewing needles and fish hooks have been used by humans for thousands of years. The earliest known sewing needles were made from bone and date back to the Upper Paleolithic period, around 30,000 to 45,000 years ago.

 

[Larniavc]

532

(Ocean salination, strength of the magnetosphere, moondust.)

They’ve been debunked years ago.

 

[Larniavc]

That means it is a cardinal sin for an abortionist to refer to a clum of cells as a baby or human.

Biblical citation, please.

 

[Diamond72]

Biblical citation, please.

You want scriptures to show that abortion is wrong?

 

[Larniavc]

You want scriptures to show that abortion is wrong?

Or right. Both are in the Bible.

 

[Diamond72]

Or right. Both are in the Bible.

The question is, who will make it to Heaven, and who will not be qualified? Who is washed and cleansed in the Blood of Jesus and who is not?

 

[Larniavc]

The question is, who will make it to Heaven, and who will not be qualified? Who is washed and cleansed in the Blood of Jesus and who is not?

Irrelevant to most people on Earth.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Making his anti-intellectual attack on science...

Scientists will use ONLY the data and information that render deep time, and firewall any data and information that render a much younger earth.

My pastor is a YEC, and he makes the point that, of some 70 different processes that render a young earth, scientists use only the ones that they can manipulate to render deep time, and discard the rest.

So what you're saying is that your pastor also doesn't know what he is talking about.

Carbon dating methods, radio dating methods, ice cores, dendrochronology? no problem with scientists.

'cause they work. They aren't perfect (no method is), but they do corraborate each other (and other things).

But ocean salination, strength of the magnetosphere, moondust, etc? those get swept away.

The ocean has salt, the moon has dust, the magnetic field of the Earth has a sphere. So what? None of these things are "age" determinations.

Measuring the age of the Earth by the current inflows of salt into the ocean (and not the outflows) is like measuring hair loss by measuring the length of someone's hair before and after a haircut.

 

[stevevw]

It's anthropologists and geneticists who claim that race is a social construct.

So are you saying its entirely a social construct.

 

[sfs]

So are you saying its entirely a social construct.

No -- had I wished to say that, I would have said it. I was correcting a statement you made, in which you said that it was the 'proponents of CRT' who claim that race is a social construct. That statement was simply wrong, because that's not who the claim about race came from. I said nothing whatsoever about whether race really is a social construct or not.

Now, as for what I actually think about race as a social construct... I don't think it's the most useful formulation: almost all human knowledge is a social construct, so calling race a construct tells us very little. A more useful question for me is, how well does the contemporary concept of 'race' describe the reality of human variation? The answer is, 'Quite poorly'. That doesn't mean that there is no correlation at all between conventional racial categories and, say, actual human genetics. What it means is that race does a very poor job of capturing the reality, confuses more than it clarifies, and incidentally carries a great deal of historical baggage, some of it explicitly racist.

 

[stevevw]

No -- had I wished to say that, I would have said it. I was correcting a statement you made, in which you said that it was the 'proponents of CRT' who claim that race is a social construct. That statement was simply wrong, because that's not who the claim about race came from. I said nothing whatsoever about whether race really is a social construct or not.

Now, as for what I actually think about race as a social construct... I don't think it's the most useful formulation: almost all human knowledge is a social construct, so calling race a construct tells us very little. A more useful question for me is, how well does the contemporary concept of 'race' describe the reality of human variation? The answer is, 'Quite poorly'. That doesn't mean that there is no correlation at all between conventional racial categories and, say, actual human genetics. What it means is that race does a very poor job of capturing the reality, confuses more than it clarifies, and incidentally carries a great deal of historical baggage, some of it explicitly racist.

So obviously ideologues are using the science from anthropologists and geneticists to support their claim. But as you point out its a bit misleading. The difference between reality and ideology is that ideologues that promote CRT today claim there is absolutely no genetic or biological basis. So they go to the other extreme that claims race in only about genetics and biology and used to descriminate.

Instead ideologues use post structural theory that nature itself is a social construct to enable them to reconstruct reality to align with their ideological beliefs and assumptions. Thus cherry picking what suits their claims. Either way its a misrepresentation and anti intellectual. Especially in that todays CRT is used as the basis for educating people.

Once again: are “races” social constructs without scientific or biological meaning?

Every day, it seems, I hear that “races have no biological reality or meaning; they are purely social constructs.” And that statement is somewhat misleading, for even the crudely design…

whyevolutionistrue.com

 

[sfs]

So obviously ideologues are using the science from anthropologists and geneticists to support their claim. But as you point out its a bit misleading. The difference between reality and ideology is that ideologues that promote CRT today claim there is absolutely no genetic or biological basis.

But what biological basis is there that has any relevance to, well, anything? Even framing the issue as whether there are biological differences between the races already relies on the kind of misconception I'm talking about. Racial categories vary geographically and with time, they lump people together with very different genetic backgrounds, and they treat differences as if they were characteristic of all members of a race, rather than statistical differences between groups.

In short, saying that there is a correlation between racial categories and biology is not the same as saying that there is a biological basis for racial categories. The former is true and the latter is false. Racial categories don't exist to describe biology.

 

[stevevw]

You are making far more of "CRT" than it really is.

Am I really. If its a non issue then why is there a culture war happening over this at the moment. Why are so many in the know including those within education saying its a problem. Why have the majority of States banned or are planning to ban CRT and its tenets being taught in schools.

CRT MAP: Critical race theory legislation and schools

 

[Hans Blaster]

Am I really. If its a non issue then why is there a culture war happening over this at the moment. Why are so many in the know including those within education saying its a problem. Why have the majority of States banned or are planning to ban CRT and its tenets being taught in schools.

CRT MAP: Critical race theory legislation and schools

The "culture war" is being "fought" by the reactionary right to the slow evolution of our society. "CRT" is one of the rally points they use in their "war".

But let's get back to attacks on science...